From New Zealand Climate Change, this goes beyond “noble cause corruption”. This is outright malicious interference with the scientific process, and it’s damned ugly. I can’t imagine anyone involved in professional science who could stand idly by and not condemn this.
– Anthony
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this? It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.
This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.
Amongst those involved are Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.
The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on. When quoting the emails, I do so minus annoying symbols such as >>>. Where I am commenting within the email text, I place the text as [this is my comments], and any bold text is my emphasis.
The starting point is email 2683, from 12 April 2003 when there is grumbling about a paper by Soon & Baliunas (S&B) published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). There is some discussion of the S&B study, and Mike Hulme discusses the potential of the paper on the thoughts of policymakers with Barrie Pittock:
Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).
I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.
The first point to note is their concern is as much about the impact upon policy as it is about the science. This will become important for setting the context for the progressive process in which they eventually seek to destroy the career of the offending editor.We then get a response from Salinger, in response to Pittock’s call for someone to ‘take up the gauntlet’:
Dear Mike, Barrie, Neville et al
Saturday morning here and thanks for all your efforts. I note the reference to Chris de Freitas. Chris writes very voluminously to the NZ media and right wing business community often recycling the arguments of sceptics run overseas, which have been put to bed.
I, personally would support any of these actions you are proposing particularly if CR continues to publish dishonest or biased science. This introduces a new facet to the publication of science and we should maybe have a panel that ‘reviews the editors’. Otherwise we have the development of shonkey editors who then manipulate the editing to get papers with specific views published. Note the
immediacy that the right wing media (probably planned) used the opportunity!
Your views appreciated – but I can certainly provide a dossier on the writings of Chris in the media in New Zealand.
There are several points of note here. First of all, the positioning of de Freitas as being part of a right-wing, and there is even suggestion of a conspiracy. Finally, just to demonstrate that de Freitas is an ‘outsider’, Salinger will produce the evidence. Having a different view, it seems, is condemnation. Pittock then responds to Salinger:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
‘Energy and Environment’ is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view – the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics’ papers so that readers are not deceived.
On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with. I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.
Here we have our first indications that de Freitas may be about to face problems.
Excerpts:
People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication.
…
… is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily [agreeing with their views] peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?
…
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Again, good science is the science that agrees with their own views. Bad science is to take an opposing view. ‘Purity of science’ is taken to mean ‘agreeing with my views’. Again, this is disturbing, but more disturbing is the moral righteousness that leads towards the comment that Salinger is happy to be part of it.
…
Also assessing copyright as the ‘other’ Soon/Baliunas paper in Energy and Env. is essentially the same as that in CR. Hans wanted to try this first, but didn’t want to tell all what he was doing. Fears a backlash if de Freitas gets removed without due cause. So let’s all try and keep the emails down, and hope we can report something to all once the correspondence Hans initiates gets replies.
Here, they are trying to get de Freitas through other means, which is copyright violation.
…
This is all very tragic. I will, if I have time, try to finish the story, or others may want to take it forwards if they have the time or inclination. What I do know is that this particular case appears to be one of the most clear and damning I have yet seen with regards to the ‘team’ seeking to stifle debate, and ultimately destroy the scientific process. It is just all the more shocking for the tribalistic hounding of Chris de Freitas.
Read the full article here.
If you would like to see the next section of the story, it can be found here. It is even more damning, an excerpt:
email 4808.
Phil Jones is following up on the email of Mann, in which he proposes writing a letter to the other editors of Climate Resarch, asking for the editors to resign in protest at de Freitas being an editor.
Did anything ever come of this? [the email to the CR editors]
Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven’t heard anything. A large segment of the community I’ve been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand–the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress. They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.
In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again. Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging.I’ll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.
Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may be able to do in this regard to move this forward.
UPDATE: Dr. Chris de Freitas has responded here, well worth a read.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would take the AGW proponents ‘concern’ over the quality of papers seen in journals more seriously if they actual raised this ‘concern with the rubbish the team and friends have managed to get published . As it is everything supporting AGW as been treated as its the ‘word of God’ no matter how awful and scientifically worthless its been .
KnR says:
November 28, 2011 at 6:48 am
They’re completely ignorant of the fact that if their argument actually had merit and was demonstrable, they wouldn’t be in this mess.
Perhaps an unplanned result of the modern activist movement to protect the environment from human encroachment has been a de-facto push to “Occupy Climate Science” by that group. While intending to beneficial, they may have led the whole discipline into a dogmatic swamp.
crosspatch said:
“Also, anyone with access to Quaternary Research can find articles over the years referencing a warm period of time corresponding in time to the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere, too. There are several such papers. They seem to be more geology related, though, and not so much “climatology” so people in the climate field might have missed them.”
In the FOIA 2011 dump there are references to Oroko Swamp in New Zealand.
Two from Ed Cook in 2000
3759.txt
“Hi Keith,
Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!).”
1039.txt
“Hi Keith,
Here is an updated Word 98 file with the Oroko Swamp chronology plot and overlay plots of Urals, Tornetrask, Mt Read, and Oroko (AD 1000-1980) transformed to z-scores and smoothed to emphasize centennial-scale fluctuations. All 4 show somewhat synchronous warm periods (ca. AD 1300-1500) and cool periods (ca. AD 1550-1650). Urals and Oroko are reasonably similar most other times as well. So, there appears to be little evidence of anti-phasing in these data. “
Alex says:
November 28, 2011 at 6:19 am
This will not be the end of the team or agw hysteria, in the best case it will go away slowly over the next 10 years…
_____
Not likely. You are confusing personal and professional politics and science– which is of course exactly what the Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 emails display to one level or another. However, this does not change the fundamental science and research done by thousands of scientists from around the world who have no relationship at all to Climategate that supports the basic tenets of AGW. Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc. are not the only ones doing climate research, and while I don’t happen to think they are as corrupted as many here on WUWT believe (though certainly all too human), I do look at the full spectrum of research done by all the scientists in the field, and draw my opinion of the human effects on Earth’s climate from the total sum and weight of evidence.
Joel Shore,
“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process ”
So, if I am reading this correctly, if a bona fide scientists okays a paper AND the paper is “anti-greenhouse science” (whatever that means), THEN the editor responsible is unscrupulous?
Taxpayer1234 says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm
My husband is a chemist with over 25 years of experience in industry. He says the AGW “scientists” have the same level of maturity and grasp of reality as 5-year-olds. I thought he was exaggerating…but after reading this stuff, I see he’s right on target.
I found this yesterday while looking at the information NewZealandClimateChange had put together as I didn’t know anything much about de Freitas – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/aug/16/comment.weather
I was delighted to find de Freitas to be a level-headed adult scientist..
And just for interest now, I looked up Palutikof in the Climategate emails and found this [0748]:
In one e-mail Pittcock says:
“minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on”
All skeptics concur. Too bad they didn’t insist on this before publishing Mike Mann’s garbage.
mfosdb says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm
“3265 de Freitas’ defence :”
Not to be the thread’s Donnie (‘The Big Lebowski’), but de Freitas’ defense of his editorial conduct suggests topics that just beg to be discussed, topics underlying the main event of climate crew collusion. I’ve got two questions —
1. Is the Soon CR (or EAE) paper solid?
2. Was the CR paper given proper peer review?
Negative answers to these questions don’t excuse, of course. The e-mails regarding the de Freitas fracas paint Mann et al as Torquemadas just looking to put the screws to apostates. Maybe worse is their retreat to the default position that publication of an article contrary to their views means ipso facto that the peer review process has been juked by a conspiracy. (Projection, much?)
But their fervor seems a bit more… reasonable if the paper is actually junk, and if the peer review process was actually compromised. On the latter, de Freitas defends himself as quoted by mfosdb. In the few e-mails that I’ve read, I don’t see any accusations that de Freitas lied about the four reviewers’ recommending publication (with revisions). But the Wikipedia article asserts that all four reviewers recommended rejection. The claim’s source is a couple of lines from a Guardian article, which overall takes a disfavorable view of Mann et al: “But many on the 10-man [CR] editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review)
Which is it? Otto Kinne’s CR editorial on the imbroglio says little about the Soon paper itself, focuses mainly on the aftermath, and does not rise above typical damage control boilerplate. Thoughts?
The de Freitas e-mail (3265) also contains some defense of the paper’s contents and methodology. Can anyone speak to those? I haven’t gotten my hands on the rebuttal Eos paper, but I assume it goes after both tooth-and-nail. Does anyone have any insight on the fact (per Wikipedia) that scientists cited in S&B claim that paper commits major errors of fact and interpretation concerning their work? The Wikipedia article cites books that sound, well, screedy. Is the Eos paper discussed in any of the Climategate e-mails?
Again, apologies if I’m out of my element here.
Hello All
See copied email below:
Thu, 3 July 2003 12:42:48 +0200
To CLIMATE RESEARCH
Editors and Review Editors
Dear colleagues,
In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.
I have received and studied the material requested.
Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
appropriate revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
Summary:
Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
Best wishes,
Otto Kinne
Director, Inter-Research
————————————————-
Inter-Research, Science Publisher
Ecology Institute
Nordbuente 23,
D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
Germany
Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email: ir@int-res.com
Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 http://www.int-res.com
Dave Springer says:
November 28, 2011 at 12:54 am
These are the exact same tactics that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have been using against any scientist who doesn’t make the proper obeisance to the godless narrative of mud-to-man evolution. The climate change worshippers are cut from the same cloth and use the same playbook.
____________
You’re overgeneralizing. Conway Morris’ nonstandard take on evolution (in “Life’s Solution”) has been generally well-received. (e.g. from Nature: “I recommend this book to anyone grappling with the meaning of evolution and our place in the Universe …) One reason for this may be that, unlike the ID’ers, he tries to give an account of the mechanisms involved.
George E. Smith; says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Sorry to contradict you but we still get quite a bit of “New Zealand Lamb” and Butter in the UK.
We get very little Lamb from the rest of the EU as Wales produces quite a bit.
Some here are defending the Team for trying to get de Frietas sacked because it is “bad science” but my dear friends the literature is FULL of bad science. Have the team ever gone on the war path about alarmist bad science? Did they protest when Gore’s film shows NY city going under water, along with half of Florida, a scenario which the IPCC does NOT suggest at all? Did they write letters to Gore’s publisher? No, because Gore had good motives (in their eyes) and motives matter more than facts…but that is not science, that is post-modernism.
Joel Shore is the object of a lot of ad hominem abuse in this thread.
Abuse, perhaps. Ad hominen, no.
Nobody is much getting stuck into irrelevant details of him or his family. They’re not even, which a few commenters here are often guilty of, accusing him of particular political views. Not all attacks are ad hominen.
Funny you think that a bit of, erm, “vigorous” on-topic discussion is an issue, but The Team trying to get a reputable scientist sacked for doing his job is worth passing over.
And how about this, for a corruption of peer review. Phil Jones reviews a paper by Prof Courtillot, that criticises his own work, and so he writes a terrible review and gets the rival paper rejected. Now that is not simply unprofessional, it is almost criminal:
email number {120,042,656} .
Here, Phil Jones is complaining (again) about Professor Courtillot from France, who criticises his data and his computer simulations. So Phil Jones says:
“”
From: Phil Jones
To: Gavin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edouard Bard
Date: Tue Jan 15 14:49:24 2008
Cc:
I know all this is a storm in a teacup – and I hope I’d show your resilience, Mike, if this was directed at me. I’m just happy I’m in the UK, and our Royal Society knows who and why it appoints its fellows! In the Science piece, the two (Prof) Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal rejection emails – the other reviewer wasn’t quite as strong as mine, but they were awful.
Cheers
Phil””
R.Gates.
However, this does not change the fundamental science and research done by thousands of scientists from around the world who have no relationship at all to Climategate that supports the basic tenets of AGW. Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc. are not the only ones doing climate research,
Is this true? Once you strip out all the findings of The Team, and those that rely on them, how much is actually left? How many papers based on original data are there?
I’ve looked around and seen satellite data that is unconvincing, sea temperature buoy data that is unconvincing, radio-sonde data that is unconvincing, sea level data that is unconvincing. However I’ve seen evidence for the MWP that is extremely convincing and quite a lot showing CO2 lags temperature. Even assuming the “greenhouse effect” I’ve seen lots of papers that show sensitivity to CO2 has been wildly over-estimated by the alarmists.
We know its warming. I want to see evidence that CO2 is causing this, and that it is catastrophic. Start naming these “thousands” who support this based on hard evidence!
http://pjmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2009/10/07/tribes-2/
A great read for those who do not grasp what is meant by tribal.
re post by: Nate_OH says: November 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Nate, you’re right, it’s a great read (for anyone/everyone actually) – thanks for posting the link!! It’s one I’ll forward along to friends.
DesertYote says:
November 27, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Any doubt now that this is not about science and never has been. CAGW is just a pretext to cause fear so that the ignorant willingly accept the Marxist world envisioned by our betters.
——————————————–
Exactly right, DesertYote.
Realising that may lead people to the further realisation that CAGW is just one amongst several current and ongoing pretexts designed to cause fear.
What should be becoming clear to folks is that the CO2 reduction plan (for western economies only) is going ahead no matter how much corruption is exposed. It only matters if the corruption infests the public conciousness through the TV/radio, which it mysteriously never does. Such things are not reported. The MSM is completely controlled. Compliant, obsequious to its masters; like the BBC in the UK.
Only what Crosspatch calls the “pull media” reports this stuff. Therein lies the problem, i.e people (perpetrators) get to feel they are above the law because they never get hauled up for anything. The public doesn’t care because the public simply doesn’t know about it, despite being able to tell you who won the last five XFactors/American Idols/Superbowls (bread and circuses). At all levels and in all areas, this leads to increasing corruption, which, as every historian knows, eventually leads to collapse (generally not pretty).
The media should absolutely be held to account for their failure to properly investigate any of these issues. Don’t you call it the “Fourth Estate” in the US, aren’t they meant to play some unwritten part in the “checks and balances” leading to good governance? The “journalists” sold out a long time ago. Journalists are just as cowardly and without moral principle as the so-called scientists exposed further by their own words in this latest release of emails. Complicit, that’s the word I’m looking for.
But what can the poor folks at the BBC do when uncle Chuck has made it plain that he’s four square behind the good old boys at the CRU and the vital work they are doing?
Modern day journalists should watch a collection of John Pilger documentaries, to learn what it really means to be a journalist. You know, a person of integrity, determined to report the truth, whatever the consequences. Bygone era, I suppose.
R. Gates wrote:
There’s a logical error deep in the physics. It’s so deep that most people have even forgotten the logic.
Remedy the logic, and the whole thing collapses.
Clouds are important. Rain is vastly more so.
Vince Causey:
Not even close. I might recommend a remedial reading comprehension course.
R. Gates;
However, this does not change the fundamental science and research done by thousands of scientists from around the world who have no relationship at all to Climategate that supports the basic tenets of AGW. Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc. are not the only ones doing climate research>>>
The ones that Mann, Jones, Trenberth et all didn’t get fired you mean? Or are you talking about the ones who didn’t get fired but couldn’t get their papers published because Mann, Jones, Trenberth et al got editors who would dare to publish their work fired? Which ones are you talking about?
Joel Shore;
Basically, it seems like the “skeptics” want to have it both ways: >>>
C’mon Joel, you’re taking one comment from one person and applying it out of context with a brush so broad you could paint a barn in a single stroke! Both sides!
I don’t speak for all skeptics anymore than anyone else does, but I’m pretty certain that the consensus would be that we want to see good science published, regardless of the results.
Even as someone with a confirmed bias toward the AGW “consensus”, you must be very uncomfortable with the clear evidence showing that good science was in fact suppressed and bad science was frequently given a free pass. As a skeptic, if there is a skeptic paper that was known to be bad science and managed to get published anyway through political hyjinx, then I want to know about it and I’ll be just as unhappy as I would about a warmist paper guilty of the same sin.
crosspatch says: November 27, 2011 at 7:50 pm
NOTE: 4241.txt is where Briffa …. ….
Wilson, crosspatch, not Briffa
Q. Daniels says:
November 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“There’s a logical error deep in the physics. It’s so deep that most people have even forgotten the logic.”
____
There can be no logical error “deep in the physics”, but only in our understanding of the physics, which I presume is what you meant to say. And if this is what you meant to say, then to that I say “hogwash”. There is no logical error in our understanding of the basic physics of how CO2 operates in relationship to electromagnetic radiation, and its related greenhouse properties. It is even known that CO2’s greenhouse properties operate on a logarithmic fashion, but if this is all there was to the matter, this discussion would have ended years ago and could have been understood by any average high school physics student, as a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm would lead to at most a 1C global temperature swing. But as we all know, (or certainly should know), that is not all there is to it, as there are multiple feedback processes, both negative and positive, and both slow and fast, which alter the trajectory of how much warming a doubling of CO2 might bring about. These feedback processes involve everything from water vapor and clouds to dust and sea ice, and vastly complicate exactly how much warming really does occur. One recent study seems to suggest it might be as low as 2.4C for a doubling, (though I happen to think this study is skewed to the low side in a significant fashion, but even if its not, it still shows the effect of doubling of CO2 is not just logarithmic). Other studies seem to show 3C or more from a doubling. Part of the issue is the speed at which the CO2 will have doubled. It is hard to find analogs to this, and the rapidity of the doubling could well have an effect of the nature of the feedbacks, such that a doubling over 10,000 years behaves far different in terms of temperatures and feedbacks than a doubling over a few hundred years.
But your general notion that there is some fundamental flaw deep in our understanding of the greenhouse properties of CO2, and all the other greenhouse gases of our atmosphere is simply incorrect. The only real unknown is how sensitive the climate is to a doubling of CO2 over a relatively short time frame. We know it will make things warmer, but what we don’t know how all the feedbacks will interact, and so we just don’t know how warm it will get.
Finally, please note: there is nothing “catastrophic” in anything I said. I simply know that the science behind CO2’s basic greenhouse properties is not in question. The real issue is one of sensitivity and the effects of fast and slow feedbacks– these are the big unknowns.